<bigger>Ruth 4:21 KAI SALMAN EGENNHSEN TON BOOZ KAI BOOZ EGENNESEN TON
WBED
</bigger>Here we see Boaz taking the definite article as the subject of
the first phrase in the accusative, but the second phrase which is
joined by KAI, the definite article is dropped in the nominative. I am
assuming it is because the words are joined by KAI that the definite
article not needed. We know Boaz in the second phrase, is clearly the
same as in the first phrase. Is the same grammatic format as John 1:1?
Is this a valid comparison verse grammatically? John seemed to phrase
his Greek by from the Septuagint in several places, at least in my very
humble opinion: [EN ARCH Gen 1, EGW EIMI Ex 3:14]). Could it be that
John 1:1 is sort of an anti-geneology, ie. the LOGOS was not born or
never did not exist, so John explains his preexistence in a geneologic
phrase, in an allusion perhaps to Matthew beginning with Jesus' legal
geneology?
I could be way off-base, since I am mostly self-taught, but if the
comparison holds up, the correct translation would then be "The Word
was with God and God was the Word." Does that violate some other rule
of grammar?
Thanks in advance for your learned opinions.
Steve
______________________________________________________________________________
Steve Long
president
Allegro Graphics, Inc., Allegro Digital Media, Inc.
4132 Industrial Drive, Saint Peters, Missouri 63376
1-888-819-8166 toll-free
steve@websrv.com, steve@allegrographics.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--- b-greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek To post a message to the list, mailto:b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, mailto:subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu To unsubscribe, mailto:unsubscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu?subject=[grammateus@sunsite.unc.edu]